Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart put super PACs in public eye

As Monday night’s Republican presidential debate turned once again to an angry exchange over the independent group ads defining the South Carolina primary, Rick Perry parried with what he thought was a perfectly targeted taunt.

“This is a great example,” he said, “of the insiders that are having the conversation up here.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Colbert hands off Super PAC

But when it comes to super PACs, it seems we are all insiders now. The arcana of campaign finance regulation — the dark science of politics — has entered the popular bloodstream, thanks largely to the on-going shtick of Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart and some genuine insiders like Buddy Roemer and Trevor Potter who have become part of their supporting cast.

And for campaign finance wonks — especially the ones who for years have decried the impact of too much money on politics, to little effect — it’s been a sea change.

“In 2010, we were trying to get a lot of media and opinion leaders interested in the idea of, hey, you were looking to see what was going to happen as a result of Citizens United and the other court rulings, you should take a look at super PACs, and there was some interest,” said Gabriela Schneider, communications director of the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for more transparency in government. “But after the election in 2010, almost nothing – until Stephen Colbert.”

This week, Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of registered voters had heard of Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruling that allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political ads as long as they didn’t coordinate with campaigns. And a solidly bipartisan 65 percent believe the new rules on independent expenditures were having a negative effect on the 2012 campaign.

Colbert himself has been coy about whether he intends to be throwing his weight behind the reformers’ cause, or has simply been out for laughs over the last eight months as he has gone about starting a super PAC, filling it with money, using it to buy ads in early states and now, most recently, transferring it to Stewart as he explores a presidential run.

His previous forays into the political process – an attempt at a presidential run in 2008, and congressional testimony on behalf of undocumented farm workers in 2010 – seemed sillier, with any message deliberately undercut by ridiculousness.

This time around, he’s playing with real money — though his PAC, like those it parodies, has thus far avoided disclosing just how much money it’s raised and from whom — and making the real rules the source of the comedy. But he told the New York Times magazine in one of his infrequent interviews that his aim is humor, not education.

Colbert created his super PAC in June, after petitioning the Federal Election Commission for a media exemption that would let him talk about it on the air without getting his employer, Viacom, in trouble.

As the Republican primary has heated up, he’s used it to meddle in the political process, buying ads urging Iowans to write in Rick Perry “with an a” in the Ames straw poll and, most recently, running ads in South Carolina accusing Romney of being a serial killer (since he believes corporations are people and used to chop them up while at Bain Capital).

But he moved into a new dimension last week when he decided he wanted to explore a campaign of his own (for “President of the United States of South Carolina”) and thus had to transfer the super PAC to Jon Stewart.

While the PAC’s actual name is “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” Colbert had been referring to it as the “Colbert Super PAC,” and, as part of the transfer gag, they gave it a new unofficial moniker: “The Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC.”

Readers' Comments (16)

It isn't surprising that President Barack Obama comes from Illinois, whose state government has the lowest credit rating in the U.S. (lower than even California's). The federal debt will rise from about $10 trillion to $16 trillion during his term. It is quite possible that it will double versus 1/2009, by 1/2017, if Mr. Obama is reelected. What is surprising is that the current administration seems so unconcerned about the federal government's catastrophic fiscal condition. If Mr. Obama and company were competent leaders they would spend most of their efforts on federal fiscal reform and retrenchment, starting from the statement "folks, we're broke."

What is surprising is that the current administration seems so unconcerned about the federal government's catastrophic fiscal condition.

President Obama will run as the man who has cut more government spending than any American president in the last fifty years. What are Republicans going to run on? All Republican presidential candidates (except Paul) are decrying President Obama's proposed streamlining of our bloated military-industrial complex. Republicans are promising new expensive military adventures, such as war with Iran. Romney wants to become more deeply entrenched in Afghanistan and wage an endless war against the Taliban. Perry even wants to send troops back into Iraq! Republicans should quit criticizing our more fiscally restrained president and start criticizing Republican presidential candidates for forgetting what you and Paul know -- "Folks, we're broke."

What is surprising is that the current administration seems so unconcerned about the federal government's catastrophic fiscal condition.

President Obama will run as the man who has cut more government spending than any American president in the last fifty years. What are Republicans going to run on? All Republican presidential candidates (except Paul) are decrying President Obama's proposed streamlining of our bloated military-industrial complex. Republicans are promising new expensive military adventures, such as war with Iran. Romney wants to become more deeply entrenched in Afghanistan and wage an endless war against the Taliban. Perry even wants to send troops back into Iraq! Republicans should quit criticizing our more fiscally restrained president and start criticizing Republican presidential candidates for forgetting what you and Paul know -- "Folks, we're broke."

The all but totally neglected Buddy Roemer has his sights set on the central issue before US -- the dangerous amount of unregulated money in American politics. The big money buys access and influence and leads to laws which turn American democratic values on their head. Romney is the perfect example; he has amassed over a quarter of a billion dollars yet pays a lower tax rate than many middle-class Americans. Conservative George Will has recently argued convincingly that government has always been in the redistribution of money business and the redistributed money has largely gone to the richest. It makes sense; the richest have the money to fill campaign coffers and hire armies of lobbyists to pressure politicians -- scrambling for money and political survival -- to pass laws that benefit the richest. Until politicians are not dependent on private monies and are no longer nearly full-time fundraisers, rich special interest groups will continue to corrupt politicians and politicians will continue to pass laws that undermine our democratic values, cripple our economy and exacerbate the growing economic and opportunity inequality in America.

That's the problem with unlimited personal and organization and corporate spending on political campaigns. It distorts and destroys the American ideal of "one man, one vote" because it greases the campaigns and facilitates the success of ideologically driven and ideologically enthralled candidates. It greases the campaigns and contributes to the success of candidates who are willing to take a lot of money from a few people—is their motive hard to figure out? More of my comments at: http://barleyliterate.blogspot... />

That's the problem with unlimited personal and organization and corporate spending on political campaigns. It distorts and destroys the American ideal of "one man, one vote" because it greases the campaigns and facilitates the success of ideologically driven and ideologically enthralled candidates. It greases the campaigns and contributes to the success of candidates who are willing to take a lot of money from a few people—is their motive hard to figure out? More of my comments at: http://barleyliterate.blogspot... />

Why is it that the supreme court has to make a really dumb decision every 5 to 8 years? They did that when they INSTALLED the dummy G.W.Bush as president in 2000 and last year with Citizen United effectively calling Corporations PEOPLE. Shameful!

Sure, we're laughing with Colbert and Stewart, but the fact is the Federal Election Commission is the joke. Partisan deadlock, stalled investigations (if any investigation at all), hell 5 of the 6 commissioners are serving on expired terms. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has a petition going on the White House's website which will force the Obama administration to take a stand and explain why they're allowing our democracy to disintegrate before our very eyes. Read more about their efforts at http://fixthefec.org.

Potter is careful not to ascribe any motivations to Colbert, but does believe there is earnest concern beneath the many layers of irony and hairspray.

Colbert's faux blowhard character is hilarious. The fictional persona allows the writers to create scenarios and interview questions that go beyond mere reality to truthiness itself.

Even his mentor, Jon Stewart, pleaded with the Emmy audience last year to give Colbert's show the award.

It reminds me of Second City Television, the 1976-84 sketch show that at its best outshined Saturday Night Live. The talented Canadian troupe played the employees and executives of a tacky, low-budget network. The format allowed the show to parody any kind of entertainment or news programs. Miss that show!

The only thing funnier than the Colbert/Stewart satire is the Republicans complaining about it. You know what else would be funny, to see one of these homophobic GOP candidates stand face to face with a gay soldier who's fought in combat and tell that soldier that he doesn't deserve the same rights as his fellow Americans. Can't wait to see if Colbert (aka: Cain) defeats Santorum this Saturday.